The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

1. 2005.0456EC (K. Amdur: (415) 558-6351)

55 Page Street-south side between Franklin and Gough Streets, Lot 9 (formerly Lots 7 and 8) in Assessor’s Block 854 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to modify conditions of approval for a previously approved residential project proposed for the subject site but not yet constructed. That project would remodel an existing building at 49 Page Street demolish an existing building at 53 Page St., and construct an 8-story residential building with 128 dwelling units, ground floor commercial space and 126 parking spaces in a below-grade parking garage. The proposed modifications would change conditions of approval (1) related to the Below Market Rate (BMR) units, to allow them to be sold rather than restricting them to rental tenure only and (2) to "un-bundle" the residential parking spaces (to allow units to be sold without parking spaces). This project is within an NC-3 District and an 80-A Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from the Regular Meeting of September 22, 2005October 27, 2005)

(Proposed for Continuance to November 3, 2005December 1, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued to December 1, 2005

AYES: S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander

2a. 2005.0480CV (J. Purvis: (415) 558-6354)

2814 JENNINGS STREET-west side at Egbert Avenue, Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 4912 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 303 and 215(a) to allow conversion of approximately 4,000 gross square feet of commercial space into five dwelling units. Variances are sought for off-street parking, open space and rear yard. The site is within an M-1 (Light Industrial) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, the Restricted Light Industrial Special Use District, and an Industrial Protection Zone pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 16202.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to November 17, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander

2b. 2005.0480CV(J. Purvis: (415) 558-6354)

2814 JENNINGS STREET- west side at Egbert Avenue, Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 4912 - Request for Variances from the Zoning Administrator for off-street parking, open space and rear yard in order to allow conversion of approximately 4,000 gross square feet of commercial space to five new dwellings units without access to parking or open space. The site is within an M-1 (Light Industrial) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, the Restricted Light Industrial Special Use District, and an Industrial Protection Zone pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 16202.

(Proposed for Continuance to November 17, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander

2c. 2005.0481V(J. Purvis: (415) 558-6354)

2826-2838 JENNINGS STREET- west side at Fitzgerald Avenue, Lot 002 in Assessor’s Block 4912 - Request for Variances from the Zoning Administrator for off-street parking, open space and rear yard to allow conversion of approximately 1,200 gross square feet of commercial space to three new dwellings units without access to parking or open space. The site is within an RM-1 (Residential, MIxed, Low Density) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to November 17, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander

3. 2003.1108E (V. MASS: (415) 558-5955)

450 FREDERICK STREET- Lot 012 of Assessor’s Block 1262, bounded by Stanyan, Beulah and Shrader Streets - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed demolition of a single-family residence and construction of a three-unit residence.The existing building is a 1,755-gross-square-foot (gsf) one-story-over-garage, single-family home, constructed in approximately 1897. The proposed project would result in the construction of a 5,550-gsf, four-story, three-unit residential building. The approximately 1,240-gsf ground floor would be used as a garage for the proposed three off-street parking spaces. The remaining three floors would each contain one two-bedroom dwelling unit. The proposed project would rise 40 feet from street level to the top of the parapet. The site is zoned RH-3 (House, Three-Family) and is in a 40-X height and bulk district.

There were some comments by the Board of Supervisors in regard to Home Depot. Some of the discussion was probably not exactly accurate as they were talking about the attentiveness of the Commission in regard to the EIR, which was certified around 10:30 p.m. I was just as alert at 2:30 a.m. because we had to move our cars there times that night to get them out of the garage and then off the street.

I had a question in regards to comments I had made regarding development fees being higher in San Francisco than I had particularly mentioned.

I think I need to clarify that where you are dealing with green fields, where your are dealing with new development, obviously where a developer is putting in all the infrastructure and all the street and all the plumbing, the fees of course are higher per unit.

I Did some research and had some material from John Landers at U.C. Berkeley, State Department of Community Development and San Francisco’s fees are, at this particular time, comparable to most of the large cities, a little higher on average than Los Angeles and some of the other cities. So, in clarification, however, he did mention that these fees account to about 10% of the cost of housing, and up to 15% when you considered the most affordable housing.

Also, I am in receipt of a letter from Lucetta Dunn, Director of Housing and Community Development, State of California, and I think we’re probably all aware of this already, but the law requires that the assistant development of adequate housing for the needs of moderate and low-income households, but does not specifically require that all jurisdictions have to have inclusionary housing.

In fact they do not mention here that local governments must analyze mandatory inclusionary policies as potential governmental constraints on housing production when updating the housing elements.

Essentially make sure we are not merely cost shifting to be able to subsidize these units, underwriting them by the purchaser of [a] market rate unit. So, I found this to be a very interesting correspondence and I’d like to give it to the secretary to have it copied and distributed to the other commissioners. They also made the point of mentioning inclusionary programs are a substitute for designating sufficient sites for lower income households on a regional level as required by governmental code Section 6.55.83.

I think it is pertinent as these discussions come forward here and in other governmental bodies in San Francisco that we are aware of what the State law is on this and what the interpretations are.

Commissioners Bradford-Bell

Another staff is going to get a little update later on the Bayview Area and what went on last week.

I do want to make a comment on yesterday’s extremely unfortunate hearing at the Board of Supervisors.

Clearly one person or one voice has guided Supervisor Amiano into believing that we were loopy and confused and punch drunk at 2:30 in the morning making a decision.

This Commission, as has already been pointed out, made our decision much, much earlier in the evening around the EIR for Home Depot.

I think it is a travesty, it’s really sad when we’re all here working for the same goal, and that is the people of San Francisco, then when you can not come up with a relevant reason for denying something, a project, then you attack those that work beside you to get things done. We heard six hours of public comment, and then we took a decision. We heard another six hours of public comment, and then we made a decision. We could have gone home. We could have gotten in our warm beds and spent some time with our family. But instead we dedicated ourselves to making a decision around Home Depot.

It is an extremely emotional and volatile issue for the Bayview community.

I run a cultural center where right now we have to get somebody to take the graffiti off the walls from the last young person who was killed in Bayview, and [because of] the pain his friends have put it on our walls because of pain and hope – they need walls. It breaks out along color and economic lines. I am extremely offended that Supervisor Amiano would say, don’t demonize us in the process, but he did it to us.

When this project came to us in 2003 the first time, we made a 60-day continuation on the Home Depot EIR because they brought it to us at the last minute and the Commission said, if we don’t get it 30 days in advance, we don’t review it.

So, we got the questions and responses to the DEIR 30 days in advance, we had 30 days, including the time we spent listening to the public at the hearing.

They answered questions – I had three pages of questions in the EIR and I made sure that when we I got the document, each of my questions were addressed specifically.

They flipped the building because I told them they needed to.

I went through the building step-by-step with them.

I am the one that asked them to change so that there is a better way for them to interact with the other businesses on Bayshore.

We as a Commission gave a lot of attention to that and that is why it got broken down to a smaller building by the evening.

So to demonize the Commission and to downplay the dedication we had because we don’t get the big bucks as the Supervisor pointed out he does.

We get $42.00 after taxes for sitting up here for 13 hours and listening to everybody, not limiting it to 90 minutes – listening to everybody give their point o view, reading the materials for a month in advance before we made a decision. So, to have it go to the Board of Supervisors first, I’m extremely confident we made the right decision.

I did not hear one relevant argument that came from anybody that spoke before them as to what was wrong with the EIR.

Only their lack of love for Home Depot.

Their lack of trust in Home Depot.

It had nothing to do with the issue.

Once again, the City has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars dealing with the non-issue, and then we get demonized in the process and I am extremely offended by it. And, as I have said to Commissioners here before, we used to exercise the policy of leaving at 10 o’clock.

Our good will of staying here and trying to get things off the calendar and trying to get the community that comes forth to be heard, get them heard in a night, is now being demonized and used against us.

So, I hope that we fulfill our policy of leaving here at 10 o’clock in the evening because clearly after 10 o’clock our credibility is called into question and I’m offended by it.

Commissioners Olague

I attended the State of the City address yesterday. In it I heard a lot of commitment from the Mayor to the notion of affordable housing in the City, especially for families, and I know a couple of months ago I did request that we have a hearing here that would shed some light on what are the programs in place.

It’s probably – I think a lot of decisions we make here do have an impact on that question. But I know that this redevelopment, there are areas of the City that we obviously don’t have any discretion over.

I would just like to remind staff that I would like to have that hearing calendared at some point to have a better understanding of what is the program the City has in place to really meet the needs, and what are the needs. And when we talk about BMR units and the depth of affordability, whom are we referring to?

These are the questions we have and I think we want to be part of the solution, certainly.

In order to do so, we have to have a better idea of what the vision is, what the City’s policies are, and what is the program that we should be lending our support to.

There is a hearing for November 10. So we have scheduled it this time--the hearing on green buildings, housing--I think we are going to be doing dwelling units mergers...

Jonas Ionin, Acting Commission Secretary:

I think we said dwelling unit mergers.

Unfortunately at the last hearing we moved it to the November 17th hearing. We can move it to the 10th. Which we can do because there is no formal notice required for that. And if we want to continue It again to the 17th afterwards, because people feel uncomfortable, we can do that. It allows us the opportunity. And I believe there are a couple other things, I will check my calendar and let you know.

I think we had a couple other sort of longer issues.

We just decided we were going to put some revisions to the rooms down matrix issue on the calendar also, that staff is proposing or the zoning administrator is proposing. We are going to be spending a lot of time on November 10th talking about issues as opposed to projects.

Commissioner Olague:

Looking at the calendar, some of the projects coming before us, none of them are affordable.

We do approve a lot of projects on a weekly basis that fall outside of that.

I sympathize with a lot of what Commissioner Bradford-bell said.

I do want to just inform members of the public that we do spend a lot of time outside of this hearing researching the projects, talking to as many people as we can or at least who approach us and doing a lot of research and poring over documents.

I think the public does have a bearing on our decision, obviously.

We spent hours that night listening to all sides of the issue. I do not believe that any of us were – at least I know no one appeared to me to be asleep at the wheel, or whatever it was that was implied. I am glad I missed the hearing. I do not think I want to hear it at this point.

I do just want to say that there is a lot of time that goes into this and I think there are a lot of competing needs and a lot of competing issues, and certainly I don’t want to turn a deaf ear to the Bayview Community either.

I hope as the issue continues to be deliberated, the Board continues to have an open heart and an open mind to the needs of that community that might not always appear to be – there are a lot of competing needs, a lot of neighborhoods.

There is a lot that goes into our decisions here. So it is never an easy decision, that’s is for sure.

Commissioner Bill Lee:

Part of the discussions regarding housing--can you give us a status on the development between the Trinity Properties and the City, because I think those affordable units are significant. And also as part of the presentation, can you also give us a sense of affordable housing units that are in the pipeline that have [?] about approved by us, and how many more do you anticipate that’s actually submitted to the Planning Department?

Commissioners Alexander:

Wanted to talk a little bit about the Home Depot decision, because I was extremely disappointed to hear the dialogue coming from the Board of Supervisors, especially given what we go through looking a the things that come from them. We not only spent a great deal of time looking at documents, but talking at people in neighborhood groups.

I really take offense because you have one group louder than the others [feeling] that they should be listened to.

I understand that the people who live across the freeway [ha]ve a little bit more free time and have more time to come to meetings and can be much more vocal because they don’t have jobs on that side of the freeway. That does not mean we made a bad decision.

There are people who like big box stores and people who don’t like big box stores.

We benefit from the sales tax citywide from the big box stores.

There are places for neighborhood stores and neighborhood businesses.

I don’t think as a Planning Commission we can sort of take sides one against the other. They all have to exist in this City.

We have to provide spaces for all those things to coexist and exist.

So, I think the direction in which the debate went in the Supervisors’ chambers, I don’t know, perhaps somebody there was asleep at the switch. Perhaps somebody there didn’t take time to go talk to the community and find out what was really going on.

It took US 33,000 feet or something? It is kind of ridiculous.

I hope if we take a look at this, perhaps they spend a little more time and weight a little bit more carefully the competing needs and the competing interest that we weighed as we spent our time here deliberating not just one night, but many nights to come at what we found as the most reasonable solution, and they’ll come back with an answer that I think is good for all San Franciscan and not just for a few.

Commissioner Antonini:

One other thing I meant to add before and that is that this Commission, with the exception of the obligatory breaks that we all have to take every couple hours, is sitting in our seats and listening atentatively, I think to all presenters. If there is room criticism, it is certainly not from our attentiveness or our dedication to the process.

Commissioner Hughes:

I do not think anyone was being critical of the Commission on a whole.

I think the comments were based on the…, just at that particular time.

I don’t know that it is reflective of a lack of recognition of the hours and the time and commitment that we make, but rather more narrowly focused on that particular decision.

And just for the record, I don’t know that was a unanimous decision. As I recall it, there was a split.

So in that event, I know I would have voted the way I voted regardless of the time.

It is hard to sit through that length. That is the one thing we have no control over or no way to anticipate accurately--the amount of public comment.

When you get projects like this that are as divisive as this one is…

Home Depot moved to where they were at the end of the Board of Supervisors hearing earlier, maybe the thing wouldn’t have stretched out quite as long.

We do it week after week and hope that we make reasonable sound decisions at the end of the process

But people inevitably won’t agree with something we do at one point or another. It just kind of comes with the territory I think.

C. DIRECTOR’S REPORT

6. Director’s Announcements

Director Macris is accepting an award for the Department.

Anne-Marie Rogers recently received a commendation from Representative Tom Lantos for her work on the Glen Park Plan.

A brief report was given in regard to the Department’s hiring process.

Paul Maltzer gave a report on the Bayview/Hunters Point Environmental Impact Report.

7. Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals

BoS:

Home Depot was heard and continued by a vote of +6 –0. It will be heard on Tuesday of next week, November 1st.

CEQA appeal was filed on the Medical Cannabis Dispensary Legislation proposed by Supervisor Mirkarimi. Subsequently, this item will be considered at the November 15th hearing.

At the Land Use Committee - Better Neighborhoods Plus was considered at length last week. There was extensive public comment and dialogue amongst the Supervisors. It was continued to November 9th for continued discussions and comments.

Also at the Land Use Committee – Supervisor Maxwell’s package of Visitacion Valley Community Impact Fees was considered.

They were heard favorably by the Committee and were sent to the full Board with a recommendation to adopt.

Supervisor Mirkarimi has proposed a renewal and an extension of the existing moratorium on Medical Cannabis Dispensaries. Because of that appeal, we would have otherwise had a lapse in the existing moratorium. This would fill that gap and extend the moratorium by 16 months and 15 days. We certainly anticipate having permanent controls in place well before that moratorium lapses.

BoA: None

D. GENERALPUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

SPEAKER(S):

Marilyn Amini:

At the Land Use Committee meeting yesterday and the legislations sponsors, the authors, I believe, distorted the report of the department’s support of the Better Neighborhoods Planning and Implementation process.

From all appearances to me, the Supervisor and Interim Director Macris are inappropriagely intent on railroading this legislation through in absolute deference to the special interest author and sponsor, SPUR.

John Bardis

Congratulated the Planning Commission for the good work they are doing by working responsibly on planning in the City and giving direction to the Department and implementing of the Planning Code.

Ryan Chamberlain

Concerned about the rezoning of Geary Boulevard.

Offered to give the Commission a snapshot of where that is going.

E. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED

At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time. Each member of the public may address theCommission for up to three minutes.

NONE

CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

8. 2005.0632C (M. Smith: (415) 558-6322)

115 WEST PORTAL AVENUE-between Vicente Street and 14th Avenue, Lot 031 in Assessor’s Block 2989B - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 729.50 to establish a limited financial service operated by Sterling Bank & Trust, located in the West Portal Avenue Neighborhood Commercial District and 26-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 6, 2005)

NOTE: On October 6, 2005, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and passed a motion of intent to disapprove by a vote of +7 –0. Final language on October 27, 2005.

All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing.

9. 2005.0716D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

3976-3980 26TH STREET- north side between Sanchez and Church Streets, Lot 019 in Assessor’s Block 6552 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2005 0603 4162proposing to permit the merger of four dwelling units into three dwelling units in a structure located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District, and 40-X Height/Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the permit.

535 Mission Street- south side between 1st and 2nd Streets, Lots 68 and 83 in Assessor’s Block 3721 -Request under Planning Code Sections 156(h) and 303 for the reauthorization of a previously-approved conditional use authorization for a temporary parking lot. The project site was first approved for a temporary (two years) parking lot by the Commission on October 3, 2002, in Motion No. 16465. The original approval allows the two-year authorization to be extended at the discretion of the Planning Commission.The site is withina C-3-O (Downtown Office) District and a 550-S Height and Bulk District.

1111 Junipero Serra Boulevard (AKA United Methodist Church)- east side, between Shields & 19th Avenue, Lot 24 on Assessor’s Block 7080 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 209.6(b) to install six cellular panel antennas and associated equipment at the United Methodist Church as part of wireless transmission network operated by Cingular Wireless. The Project Site is located in an RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

410 JESSIE STREET -corner of 5th and Jessie Streets, Lot 002 (formerly lots 079 through 112) in Assessor’s Block 3704 - Request for Determination of Compliance and Exceptions under Section 309 of the Planning Code. The project would convert floors 2 through 4 of the historic 10-story Hales Warehouse and Food Shop building into approximately 24 residential dwelling units. The proposed conversion would not affect the building’s exterior and would preserve all character defining features. Floors 2-4 would be converted into 8 units on each floor (Floor 2 currently contains office use and floors 3 and 4 each contain a single live/work unit per floor. The project would provide code-complying residential parking by converting six existing non-required commercial parking to residential use. The Zoning Administrator will concurrently consider a Variance request. The site is located in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and a 90-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS:

Michael Yani

Currently the building houses 34 condominium units.

I believe 30 of which are currently live/work uses.

The project converts two floors, floors 3 and 4, which are single unit live/work units to residential use.

We are bringing the building further into compliance with the existing planning code and general plan.

In terms of adequate notice and adequate report--I can personally attest to completing the section 309 application and the variance applications.

Sue Hestor

Requested the item be continued because the staff report is inadequate.

There is no explanation of what was approved in the live/work project.

They [staff] should have provided the plans.

The project needs to have documentation about what was proposed and how it was an office because City Car Share was there.

If you’re going to have conversions of live/work projects, you need to have a staff report that shows the conversions; that deals with was it used as live/work the entire time?

Staff report does not include the negative declaration and the live/work papers.

The issue here is, can you clean up a project without any analysis of what was approved in 1998, 1999 and wave a magic wand and understand whether what they did is legal?

I am contending, based on firsthand information, that this project was not operated fully as a live/work project.

It was operated partially illegally as an office building on the second floor.

410 JESSIE STREET-corner of 5th and Jessie Streets, Lot 002 (formerly lots 079 through 112) in Assessor’s Block 3704 - Request for a Variance pursuant to a Building Permit Application to convert floors 2 through 4 of an existing building into approximately 24 residential dwelling units. The project would provide a code-complying amount of open space for the new dwellings units, on an existing roof deck on the building at 418 Jessie Street, an adjoining building currently undergoing residential conversion. The site is located in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and a 90-X Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 12a

ACTION: The Zoning Administrator granted the variance.

REGULAR CALENDAR

13. 2004.0196D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

101 POPPY LANE- north side past Diamond Street, Assessor's Block 6713 Lot 056 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No.2004 0915 4254 to construct a new three story, single family dwelling on a vacant interior lot, in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and modify the project.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 20, 2005)

NOTE: On July 14, 2005, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing andcontinued it to September 15, 2005 by a vote +6 –0 to allow the parties to work out a better plan. Commissioner Bradford-Bell was absent. Public testimony is required in any new information presented.

SPEAKERS:

C. J. from Ruben and Junius

The plans that you have before you are for an entirely completely redesigned project that went all the way back to square one.

We met with neighbors four times and our new plans are a direct result of the input we received from them.

Identified as the Project Architect – [did not state name]

Gave an overview and description of the project as it was and how it has evolved.

Debbie Lee, Discretionary Review Requestor

Both sides made a lot of concessions as to what we initially started out feeling from the original DR hearing.

The project still a little bit too large, it is within the range of acceptable, but we would like to request it be reduced.

There are some privacy and landscape concerns.

John Rohosky

The site is in the middle of everyone’s backyard so landscaping is a key element here—the landscaping around the lot and the landscaping on Poppy Lane.

Bruce Katz

- We are here in good faith to see that the project can be brought to its most positive conclusion.

Our sole goal was to mitigate the way the project negatively affects the neighbors.

Roberta Guise

I would be happy to support the project if the developer would sign an agreement with us all.

[Kathryn Werhane is the name called but not stated by the speaker]

The architect has made significant changes to the design and to those of us whose houses are uphill from the proposed house appreciate the decrease bulk of the new design.

However, he has ignored or declined to address all other issues of concern.

Initially he agreed he would include a fence to the southeastern property line. At the last meeting he refused stating that there was no precedent for a fence and that he wishes to preserve the open country feel. The landscape architect has agreed to include plantings along an open fence on that side, but we have not seen that in the drawings.

We request the Commission to require the project sponsor to continue to adjust the design to reduce the impact on the neighborhood, including the people on the Moffat Street side.

Irene Homer

Very supportive of her neighbors requests.

Asked that the Commission take all of our requests seriously and to make sure that everybody is going to be able to live in a nice, peaceful neighborhood with all of their privacy intact.

Kevin Sullivan, Project Sponsor

Respectfully asked the Commission’s support of his project.

Mary Kate Sullivan

Urged the Commission to approve the project.

ACTION: Took DR and approved the new design limiting the hours of operation to 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

NAYES: Hughes

14.2005.0663C (S. Mendrin: (415) 558-6625)

836 IRVING STREET- north side between 9th and 10th Avenues, Lot 025 in Assessor’s Block 1741 -Request for Conditional Use Authorizationpursuant to Planning Code Sections 303(c) and 730.44 to allow the establishment of a small self-service restaurant use as described in Planning Code Section 790.91 within the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to change the existing personal service use “Irving Nail Salon” (nail salon & facials) to a small self-service restaurant “Toasties” (deli/coffee shop). The interior space will be reconfigured to accommodate the proposed small self-service restaurant (approximately 995 square feet and 12 seats).

680 Illinois Street- northwest corner of Illinois and 18th Streets, Lots 003 & 007 in Assessor's Block 3994 - Request for Conditional UseAuthorization under Planning Code Sections 215, 303, and 304 to create a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow the construction of up to 35 dwelling units, 7,000 square feet of commercial space, and 41 independently accessible off-street parking spaces within a M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk designation, and in the Housing/Mixed Use Zone as designated by Planning Commission Resolution No. 16202. Exceptions are requested from density, off-street parking, and permitted obstructions, as mandated by the Planning Code.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 22, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to November 17, 2005

AYES: S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander

16a. 2003.0295CDV (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

899 NORTH POINT STREET- southeast corner of North Point and Larkin Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor’s Block 0026 - Request for Conditional UseAuthorization pursuant to Sections 209.1 and 228.3 of the Planning Code to convert a service station use to residential use and to construct an approximately 40-foot tall, 4-story, 5-unit residential structure containing 7 off-street parking spaces in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-family) District, the Waterfront Special Use District No. 2 and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project site was formerly a service station and is now vacant. This project is also seeking a Variance from the Planning Code, and is the subject of a request for Discretionary Review.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 22, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to December 15, 2005

AYES: S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander

16b. 2003.0295CDV (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

899 NORTH POINT STREET- southeast corner of North Point and Larkin Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor’s Block 0026 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.04.25.3201, proposing to construct an approximately 40-foot tall, 4-story, 5-unit residential structure containing 7 off-street parking spaces in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-family) District, the Waterfront Special Use District No. 2 and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. This project is also seeking a Variance from the Planning Code, and requires Conditional Use authorization.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 22, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to December 15, 2005

AYES: S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander

16c. 2003.0295CDV (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

899 NORTH POINT STREET - southeast corner of North Point and Larkin Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor’s Block 0026 - Request for Variance from the rear yard requirements of Planning Code Section 134. The proposal is to construct an approximately 40-foot tall, 4-story, 5-unit residential structure containing 7 off-street parking spaces in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-family) District, the Waterfront Special Use District No. 2 and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. A Variance is required to construct an approximately 40’ X 22’ portion of the project fully into the rear yard along North Point Street, leaving a comparable rear yard to the interior corner of the lot of approximately 1,480 square feet. This project also requires Conditional Use authorization, and is the subject of a request for Discretionary Review.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 22, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to December 15, 2005

AYES: S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander

17a. 2004.1164CKV (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

810, 816 & 826 VAN NESS AVENUE- east side between Eddy and Willow Streets inan RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the Van Ness Special Use District and a 130-V Height and Bulk District, Lots 006, 007 & 008 in Assessor’s Block 0739 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 253.2 and 303 to construct an 88-foot-tallmixed-use building with up to 52 dwelling units, approximately 2,700 square feet of ground-floor commercial space and up to 52 parking spaces in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the Van Ness Special Use District and a 130-V Height and Bulk District. The project proposes demolition of three one-story commercial buildings (one per lot).

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS:

James Ruben, representing Project Sponsor

The City is finally benefiting from the Van Ness Special Use District with some recently approved projects.

With this project and some that are going to be coming before you soon, you will see increased residential density along Van Ness.

Warner Smalls

Gave an overall review/presentation of the project.

Joe O’Donoghue

In the 80’s we had a vision for Van Ness Avenue. That vision is becoming a reality.

810, 816 & 826 VAN NESS AVENUE- east side between Eddy and Willow Streets, Lots 006, 007 & 008 in Assessor's Block 0739 - Request for Variances from rear yard, dwelling unit exposure and off-street parking requirements per Planning Code Sections 134, 140 and 155. The proposal is to demolish the three existing one-story commercial buildings and to construct an 88-foot tall mixed-use building with up to 52 dwelling units, approximately 2,700 square feet of ground-floor commercial space and up to 52 parking spaces. In lieu of providing a rear yard equal to 25 percent of the total lot depth, the project is proposed to be set back 12 feet from the southern property line for a depth of approximately 80 feet as measured from the rear property line. Eighteen units located along the south side of the proposed building (at all levels above the ground floor) do not meet the dwelling unit exposure requirement, which states that all dwelling units shall face directly onto a Code-complying required rear yard or a public street. The eighteen units that do not meet the exposure requirement face the 12-foot setback proposed along the southern property line. 52 parking spaces are proposed for the 52 units, however a parking variance is sought for two spaces (for a total of 50 independently-accessible parking spaces) to accommodate potential future revisions to the structural design at the basement levels. The project is located in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the Van Ness Special Use District and a 130-V Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 17a

ACTION;Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance.

18. 2004.0400D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

730 GREAT HIGHWAY-east side between Balboa and Cabrillo Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 1595 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2003.05.29.5813 and 2005.10.18.5856 proposing to construct two three-story, two-unit buildings (four units total) on the vacant subject lot in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The subject lot is bounded on three sides by the Ocean Parc Village Planned Unit Development.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to December 15, 2005

AYES: S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander

19.2005.0796T (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)

c-3 District Parking Control Modifications-Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 151, 151.1, 154, 155, 155.5, 166 and 167to modify controls in C-3 Zoning Districts regarding required and permitted off-street parking and loading, design of access to off-street parking and loading, bicycle parking, car sharing, separating parking costs from housing costs and adopting environmental findings and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending. Commission action is not proposed for on October 27.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 20, 2005)

SPEAKERS:

Tom Radulovich

I’m here to speak in favor of this ordinance

The genesis of this was actually a discussion in Supervisor Daly’s office almost a year ago.

We were looking at Transbay. We were looking at Mid-Market. We were looking at all these different pieces of the C-3 that were coming forward.

Nobody disagrees that looking comprehensively at eh C-3 was long overdue.

We had not really looked at parking requirements since the long-term plan two decades ago.

There wasn’t a lot of disagreement that we should lower parking requirements in the downtown.

This really is an attempt to look at the downtown comprehensively and also get rid of that main argument that you disadvantage development in mid-Market on in Transbay by having lower requirements.

Steve Atkinson

The legislation as I’ve seen it is very confusing, in particular with the marketing requirement.

In one place the legislation reports one to two parking can be attained up to one to one. In another place it does not. This is a very fundamental difference. We should have some piece of legislation that is clear on this point--which this particular draft is not.

There are some worthwhile points in this.

We agree with the unbundling of parking.

Car Share should have a ratio of 100 units instead of 50 units. I would encourage any of my clients to provide car share, but I don’t think it is necessary to be required.

If this legislation does limit parking to one space to two units, it almost certainly is going to have a major impact on the financing of residential projects, particularly large high-rise residential projects.

Norm Rolfe

The only change I would suggest is unbundling the parking.

Jeffrey Heller

Showed two diagrams of project in the C-3 Mid-Market that have retail fronting, packing above grade, with parking in the rear that is not seen. One is at 10th and Market. The other is at Golden Gate and Johns.

Let me give you a few reasons why you want to allow some parking above grade where you can’t see it. Where it’s buried.

The first reason is working with Planning staff.

We have been able to evolve these plans consistent with Mid-Market Plan NC-3 so that the parking is never viewed by the public.

It achieves the goal of not creating a visible presence of parking and that should still be allowed in the design process at discretion of staff.

The second reason is the retail controls are for smaller retail, not larger retail.

Third, the height of the retail you want needs to be higher and more generous and therefore you can get two levels of hidden parking behind that makes them much more efficient.

In fact, as long as the architectural and the planning objectives are met, the idea of parking to a certain height--which should be evaluated more carefully by staff--makes a lot of sense.

Finally, if you do a plaza on top of the parking it’s better to do it deeper in the hole.

Baha Hariri

An answer has not been given to the policy question that has been raised. An answer can’t be given at this point about the economic impact of this legislation

There is obviously a need for parking in the region.

Tom Hart

I’m speaking against this proposal.

I think that if you are trying to de-congest or keep congestion off the streets, you should provide adequate car storage, which can be called parking.

I am for decoupling. I’m for car share. I’m for a lot of these things. But to put an absolute across the board maximum of one space for two units, I think is not serving the best purposes of the public.

David Addington

Speaking out against the proposed legislation.

We’ve already hashed this out within our mid-Market PAC. We hope the agreements we’ve reached in our PAC will be accepted by the city.

People in San Francisco do have fewer cars than they do outside of San Francisco.

But it’s my sense that if you own your unit, you own a car and we should give them a place to put it.

Andrew Segal

Against proposed legislation.

Projects that provide less parking are less desirable.

Robert McCarthy

Spoke against the proposed legislation.

Read from a letter that said: …with regard to 199 Montgomery, the survey indicates 99% of those people who bought actually owned cars.

Condominiums with parking sell at a faster pace.

The reality here is people do need their cars.

People with families, people with mobility problems, people with elderly parents need vehicles.

Please act with common sense and common wisdom.

[Did not state name]

Has not read the material but has some thoughts

People who spend &750,000 to a million dollars for condominiums downtown own cars.

I thought we were headed to think about not parking, but car storage. Some mechanical systems and someplace to put cars.

Steve (unclear last name)

There are some good ideas in this legislation.

Most of those good ideas were implemented in the Rincon Hill Plan such as elmininating minimums, eliminating dimensional minimums, requiring car share, requiring bike parking, looking at stacking and valet systems.

Those are good ideas. You should support them.

However, this legislation is not practical for the empty nesters.

I recommend that you allow some flexibility here.

[Did not state name]

We are trying to get housing into the mid-market and in terms of parking, we thought the Commission understood the need for flexibility—the need to have the ability to get one to one.

The Commission should rethink this legislation.

[Did not state name]

Went on a trip to Vancouver with the Chamber of Commerce

The issue of how much parking is permitted in Vancouver came up.

I was surprised to learn that there were no maximums on parking in Vancouver.

Many of the units, the new ones that have been built in the downtown, the downtown towers, are parked at a ratio of two spaces per unit. They were encouraging families to come downtown.

ACTION: Public hearing closed. At the call of the Chair (Commissioner Alexander), item continued to November 10, 2005.

20. 2003.0029* (J. SWITZKY: (415) 558-6815)

425 First Street (One Rincon Hill)- Motion to Approve Mello-Roos Agreement to Satisfy Rincon Hill Community Infrastructure Impact Fee Requirement per Section 318.3(f) - The Planning Commission approved a project at 425 First Street on August 4, 2005, that includes approximately 709 dwelling units. Planning Code Section 318.3(b)(i) requires payment of $11.00 per net occupiable square foot of residential development for the Rincon Hill Community Infrastructure Fund prior to issuance of site permit. The project construction is divided into two phases, the first of which would require a payment of approximately $4,580,000. The project sponsor has entered into a Waiver Agreement with the City, to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and City Attorney, to secure the formation of a Community Facilities (Mello-Roos) District and to take all necessary steps to support the construction of a portion of the public improvements, equal to the value of the Impact Fee owed by the sponsor, and described in the Planning Code 318.6 and in the Rincon Hill Plan. The Planning Commission is being asked to authorize the Director to execute the Mello-Roos Waiver Agreement to satisfy the Project Sponsor's Impact Fee requirement.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 20, 2005)

SPEAKERS:

Steve

The waiver agreement that was drafted by the city Attorney tracks sections 318 of the Planning Code, the new fee ordinance which does mandate that you approve such a fee agreement if it does provide for the formation of the Mello-Roos District or if the Mello-Roos District does not form in a timely manner, we have to pay that money in cash. There is a letter of credit to require that cash payment.

Jeffrey Linden

Encouraged the Commission to approve this agreement and looks forward to the improvements.

BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL FOR REZONING IN THE EASTERN NEIGHBORHOOD- Informational presentation will include an update on the status of the Eastern Neighborhoods planning effort and an overview of staff’s proposed permanent controls. The Eastern Neighborhoods rezoning includes Showplace Square, Mission, Potrero Hill, Central Waterfront, Bayview, and parts of South of Market.

The new plan or the new outline – because I don’t think it’s a full plan yet – has many improvements over the Plan B of the various neighborhoods that was previously the model for the Eastern Neighborhoods.

Neil (unclear last name)

I wanted to let you know we’ve gone through the Department’s report and will be submitting written comments of the analysis of three major areas of concern.

We believe option B through the process of the community workshops and the years of meeting really did strike the proper balance between PDR and the housing policies of the City.

We also believe that the EPS report kind of really bore this out.

It was particularly important to see the EPS report use very conservative assumptions and found it really clear that there was pretty much a balance of enough PDR land preserved in Option B.

Mike Burke

If you’re going to make this PDR land--and that is what it’s designated right now, core PDR--please limit that to the bottom floor and permit urban mixed-use.

It makes no sense to us to have a Core PDR in a neighborhood where it literally is surrounded by housing.

Steve Barrett

I’m here about a project not yet before you. We have named it The Gardens at Harrison

Its located at 725 Harrison Street between Third and Fourth Streets.

We plan to create 509 condo units with ground floor retail.

There exists a unique opportunity here to develop this significant amount of housing without having to resort to super towers like we saw with Rincon Hill.

We are interested in creating a vibrant oriented pedestrian community

The project is consistent with the vision of the Eastern Neighborhoods proposal.

However the plan itself needs continued revision to make the project a reality.

Bob Meyers

In terms of height and zoning, The Gardens at Harrison fits well into the urban context.

This is one of the few large sites left in the entire SOMA under one ownership and is perfect for mixed use high-density housing.

We don’t think that controls are needed for the Eastern SOMA.

We should continue the policies. We can revisit them, but we do not need to impose controls.

Allison Poole

I’m here representing The Gardens at Harrison

The site we are looking at is on the South side of Harrison touching nearly the entire block between Third and Fourth Streets

The site is over 80% of the block.

It truly is a unique opportunity for this area.

We are not proposing one modest building taking over the entire site.

We are looking at five or six buildings, 80 feet wide, 50 feet separating each building and designed for maximum light and air.

We believe this flexible building massing could adapt a unit configuration of one, two, and three bedroom units totaling 509 units.

Bob McCarthy

I wanted to thank the staff because the staff did listen carefully to both the community and the project sponsor and has agreed to allow under the current proposal housing on this site as well as commercial.

We look forward to working with staff and we hope the Commission will agree with us that this is a site that cries out for maximum housing opportunities and give that instruction to staff so we can begin to work on the design with staff.

Peter Cohen

I’m with the Backstreets Business Advisory Board.

The Board of Supervisors appoints us and our charge is to look carefully at what is being called back street businesses or PDR, or service light industrial.

We have an economic development focus rather than simply land use

I think we assume as a foundation that land supply, building stock and relatively affordable rents are going to be secure.

Our focus is on the businesses themselves and strengthening and growing the economic security of back streets or PDAR businesses as part of the economy over all.

Unlike a number of other targeted businesses in the city, what we found so far is the city doesn’t have any specific strategies to either retain or grow PDR businesses.

We have a group that is doing intense research.

We have assistance from the Office of the Legislative Analyst

We also have a business outreach committee that intends to interview hundreds of local businesses

I think we will be able to dig deep into the specific needs of the businesses themselves.

Jim Meko

We certainly do need to provide protections against the best and the highest use.

I completely agree with that, but that should be along the lines of no net loss, not industrial protection zones.

It is a geographically constrained city.

Jim Haas

Urged the Commission to not to put this in black and white between industrial, PDR and housing. But try to come up with systems, particularly with these kind of very undeveloped parcels in this area where you can come up with some really creative new developments that have multi-uses.

Joe Boss

I think one thing is really critical to move forward. It is mentioned in the next steps. And that is the workshops with the communities and how that will be handled.

This is a herculean effort by the way, putting all this stuff together, which I thank Director Macris, and Amit Ghosh for.

It is critical to pick up in each of those neighborhoods basically the same geographic area and the same people as was left off with the various workshops over the last three, four years, before they are coupled together moving forward.

Jeffrey Leibovitz

East SOMA has remained a vibrant thriving San Francisco neighborhood in spite of the .com bust.

It is now emerging as a hub for the digital arts industry.

The reason why this has occurred is and was because of interim controls that the Rincon Point South Beach Citizens Advisory Committee established with the cooperation of Sue Bierman in 1997.

East SOMA is not in need of that much improvement. But it could use some proper zoning to change some the current but outdated industrial zone surrounding the growing residential mixed-use community.

ACTION: Continued to November 10, 2005 at the call of the Chair. Public hearing was not closed.

G.PUBLIC COMMENT

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

(1) Responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2) Requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

(3) Directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

SPEAKERS:

[Name unclear}

I’m involved in a planning matter that is now before the Board of Appeals

There are a couple of related issues I want to bring to your attention.

The first is that the enforcement section within the department, having now worked with them for the last few months, is clearly under staffed for the need they have for some (+/-) 2000 enforcement cases.

They absolutely need additional resources.

My other concern is with regard to block book notations

I have asked several people in the department for opinions on what a block book notation is? What it gets the requester? What that means?

I heard testimony by the Acting Commission Secretary, Mr. Ionin last week at the Board of Appeals, and there was some conflicting testimony from the public on that.

I’ve looked at the code and as far as I can tell, there is nothing in the Planning Code that addresses what a block book notation is and what it means. It is only referenced in section 351 g with regard to fees.

I would love the opportunity to meet with the appropriate staff and clarify this so that there is understanding and uniformity in departmental procedures and that the public can understand what it means particularly as to whether or not there is a ten-day hold on permits or other applications requested.

I just want to put that out there and hopefully staff can respond in an appropriate fashion.

[Name unclear]

I listened to your comments regarding parking requirements.

I think it’s a safe bet that [the speakers] never ride MUNI. If they did the would see children, parents with children, children on their way to school, on their way to a game or athletic activities, and they would see adults carrying sporting gear. They would see people coming on with strollers, people in wheelchairs, walkers, and people carrying groceries and miscellaneous packages.

MUNI does get you there.

It certainly can stand improvement and it would be helpful if the establishment at City Hall would take a better attitude towards the MUNI than it does.

So before you go further on parking requirements or what is proposed for the C-3 area, spend a little time on the MUNI and see who rides it.

Adjournment: 8:15 p.m.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNIGN COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 2006.

Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Commission or Department. All written or oral communications, including submitted personal contact information, may be made available to the public for inspection and copying upon request and may appear on the Department's website or in other public documents.